Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ecosystem management (EM) is a process for addressing environmental problems that involves research utilizing interdisciplinary approaches. The work presented here examines the perspectives on the interdisciplinary research process from researchers involved in generating knowledge to contribute to EM. The goal is to generate critically reflective discussions about interdisciplinary practice. We conducted a set of targeted key-informant, semi-structured interviews (n = 15). Interviews followed a general questioning guide that included: experience doing interdisciplinary research; descriptions of the interdisciplinary process; understandings on how to conduct interdisciplinary research; interest in theories of interdisciplinarity; and interest in how the interdisciplinary process takes place. We coded interview transcripts to gain an in-depth understanding of how respondents perceive interdisciplinary research practice. Results indicate that discussions about how interdisciplinary research is conducted are not currently an important part of research activity among researchers contributing to EM. Rather, participants in the study see interdisciplinary practice as under theorized, spontaneous, and mainly intuition-based. They understand interdisciplinary research as a collaborative effort to integrate insights from different disciplines, but details about how to achieve integration remain hidden inside a “black box.” Results suggest that researchers in EM would benefit from specific guidelines for integrating insights across disciplines. The work discusses how opening the “black box” and considering explicit and detailed descriptions about the integration process might benefit interdisciplinary practice in research for conservation. This study contributes to future in-depth debates on how to generate dialectical engagement between EM researchers and those studying theories of interdisciplinarity in fields such as interdisciplinary studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baxter J, Eyles J. 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Trans Inst Br Geogr 22:505–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley P. 2007. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belevitch V. 1962. Summary of history of circuit theory. Proc Inst Radio Eng 50:848–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, Eds. 2003. Navigating social–ecological systems building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs HC, Coetzee Y, Dent MC. 2000. Development of a metadatabase to support a multi-organisational, multi-disciplinary river ecosystem research and management initiative—experiences from the Kruger National Park Rivers Research Programme. Water SA Pretoria 26:77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, Dantonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, Macmahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin DE, Porter AL, Rossini FA, Eds. 1986. Interdisciplinary analysis and research: theory and practice of problem-focused research and development. Mt. Airy: Lomond Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark TW. 2002. The policy process a practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordell HK, Bergstrom JC, Eds. 1999. Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Champaign: Sagamore Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Eds. 2000. The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis a user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • di Castri F, Hadley M. 1985. Enhancing the credibility of ecology: is interdisciplinary research for land use planning useful? Geo J 13:299–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Perez NA. 2007. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewert AW, Baker DC, Bissix GC, Eds. 2004. Integrated resource and environmental management the human dimension. Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine RE. 1994. What is ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 8:27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine RE. 2002. Reflections on “what is ecosystem management”. Conserv Biol 11:41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research—integrating the social and natural-sciences. Soc Nat Resour 1:5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M. 2003. Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv Ecol 7. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art8/.

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Ed. 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen CH, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ. 2004. Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. For Policy Econ 6:15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R, Eds. 2005. Social learning in environmental management towards a sustainable future. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keough HL, Blahna DJ. 2006. Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 20:1373–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT. 2000. A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, Eds. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN. 1993. Compass and gyroscope integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lele S, Norgaard RB. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55:967–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe P, Whitman G, Phillipson J. 2009. Ecology and the social sciences. J Appl Ecol 46:297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMynowski DP. 2007. Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecol Soc 12. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art20/.

  • Max-Neef MA. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53:5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell JA. 2005. Qualitative research design an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell WH. 2007. Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In: Morcol G, Ed. Handbook of decision-making. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 245–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF, Cooperrider A. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy protecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Burch WR, Grove JM. 1999. Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2:302–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L, Hirsch Hadorn G, Bammer G. 2008. Integration. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Ed. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer. p 411–24.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pujadas Botey A. 2010. Interdisciplinarity in ecosystem management. Edmonton: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. University of Alberta. p 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujadas Botey A, Garvin T. 2010. Interdisciplinary research in ecosystem management: a literature evaluation. Int J Sci Soc 1:185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujadas Botey A, Garvin T, Szostak R. 2012. Ecosystem management research: clarifying the concept of interdisciplinary work. Interdiscip Sci Rev 37:161–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF. 2011. Interdisciplinary: research process and theory. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R. 2012. Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM. 2012. Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK. 2008. The ecology of team science—understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35:S96–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R. 2002a. How to do interdisciplinarity: integrating the debate. Issues Integr Stud 20:103–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R. 2002b. Intuition and interdisciplinarity: a reply to Mackey. Issues Integr Stud 20:131–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R. 2004. Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill A. 2003. Social scientists and conservation biologists join forces. Conserv Biol 17:1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B, Tress G, Fry G. 2005. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landsc Urban Plan 70:177–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kerkhoff L. 2005. Integrated research: concepts of connection in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:452–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss RS. 1994. Learning from strangers the art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO. 1998. Integrated science and the coming century of the environment. Science 279:2048.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. 2000. Making collaboration work lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee SL. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 13:713–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by a scholarship from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, México (scholarship 205603/228694) and research funds by the Killam Foundation. First author is grateful for the support of the Community, Health and Environment Research Centre at the University of Alberta. Authors thank the people who agreed to participate in this study. Thanks are also extended to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alberta Centre for Child Family and Community Research c/o Child Development Centre, Suite 200, 3820-24 Avenue, NW, Calgary, Alberta, T3B2X9, Canada

    Anna Pujadas Botey

  2. Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Theresa Garvin

  3. Department of Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Rick Szostak

Authors
  1. Anna Pujadas Botey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Garvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rick Szostak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Pujadas Botey.

Additional information

Author Contributions

APB: conceived and designed the study, performed the research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper; TG: designed the study and wrote the paper; RS: wrote the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pujadas Botey, A., Garvin, T. & Szostak, R. Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management. Ecosystems 17, 512–521 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9737-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9737-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation